About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 9
MSNBCW 6
KPIX (CBS) 2
CSPAN2 1
FBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
the part in her sunday talk show statements that substituted the word "extremists" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting director morel told them the fbi did. they say they later heard from the cia that he had quote, misspoken and the cia was, in fact, responsible. so what's going on here? cnn intelligence correspondent suzanne kelly has been working her sources. she's joining us now. suzanne, you just got a statement from the cia. what are they saying? >> reporter: actually, i've gotten this statement from an intelligence official who told me it was in fact the cia that made the changes which is more or less what the intelligence community has been saying from the beginning, that this was a collaborative effort within the intelligence community to get their language straight and that the reasons they were doing it had to do with, as you know, classified sources. i can read you what the u.s. intelligence official has just told me. there were literally just coming
. accused of trying to join al qaeda and wage violent jihad against america. >>> let's go "outfront." ♪ >>> good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, no cease-fire. the killing continues in israel and gaza. the conflict in its seventh day. u.s. secretary of state hillary clinton in jerusalem tonight. she arrived late and went straight to a meeting with prime minister benjamin netanyahu. >> america's commitment to israel's security is rock-solid, and unwavering. that is why we believe it is essential to deescalate the situation in gaza. >> deescalate the situation in gaza. what does deescalate mean? there was a spade of rockets just a moment ago, but yet that's the key word being used by the administration. during a brief press conference with prime minister netanyahu, there was no mention of a cease-fire. netanyahu said israel is prepared to take whatever action is necessary to defend itself. and egypt, which is brokering a deal between the two sides, cancelled a press conference where officials were expected to announce a deal with terms for a cease-fire. tomo
qaeda's leadership but the threat has not been eliminated. >> this campaign against al qaeda will largely take place outside declared combat zones. using a small footprint approach that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign, special force operations and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combatting terrorism on their own. >> panetta also said associated al qaeda groups are making in roads. >>> republican lawmakers are stepping up their opposition to the nomination of susan rice to be the next secretary of state. they said she was misleading about who was behind the attack on u.s. consulate in benghazi. terrorism was cut out of talking points. the direct of national intelligence, the dni. >> reporter: u.n. ambassador susan rice relied on those talking points during an appearance on "face the nation" where she called it a spontaneous demonstration. not an act of terrorism. >> we do not have information at present that leads to us conclude this was premeditated or preplanned. >> reporter: republicans have accused her o
the work of terrorists, perhaps affiliated with al qaeda. in an appearance on "face the nation" five days after the attack, rice gave no hint of that. >> we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned. >> reporter: last week, former c.i.a. director david petraeus told congressional panels in closed sessions that someone in the obama administration removed references to terrorism and al qaeda from his agency summary before it went to rice. a source told us the edits were made by the office of the director of national intelligence. republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham have led the call for a special committee to investigate. >> i was on "face the nation" the morning she came on and told that incredible story, and right after it, the president of the libyan national assembly said it was al qaeda. we know it was al qaeda. and yet she never changed her story. >> reporter: rice also shot back against mccain's criticisms. >> i do think that some of the statements he's made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to
this was a terrorist attack, that they had arrested 50 people and that there had been al qaeda influence to individuals from other countries that had come in. and that it was premeditated and planned. and i just don't understand why the administration would have susan rice go on television and say that the views essentially of the president of libya just didn't matter. she completely discounted them. that doesn't make sense to me. >> you suggested she was behaving politically. fair enough, if that's the case. what would be the political purpose in denying the role of terrorism in this act, the central role of terrorism, organized terrorism, in the death of ambassador stevens? what would be her purpose politically in that? >> i believe that the administration wanted to portray libya as an unqualified success story. and ambassador rice was one of the chief advocates of our involvement in libya, so arguably had a personal stake in that as well. i think it was con temporary to -- contrary of the administration to say libya was awash with weapons, that there was a growing al qaeda presence, that there were
denied al qaeda's lead role in the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi that cost the lives of ambassador chris stevens and three others and she did so knowing it was true. well, the man who defeated mccain in the 2008 presidential campaign takes this as a personal shot at him. how will he respond? will he name ambassador rice his new secretary of state to replace hillary clinton? will he meet mccain's challenge head on and send rice up to the capitol to go face-to-face with the enemy? tonight we study the battlefield and the firepower of the two sides in this year-ending fire fight. mccain sure wants this fight, but do his fellow republicans? do they want an older white guy taking on the competence of a young woman of color, a rhodes scholar of solid reputation? most important, what end does the president want for this match of fact and wits? i'm joined by michael o'hanlon of the brookings institution and jonathan landay. the intelligence reporter for mcclatchy newspapers. michael, thank you for this. i want to get to the facts. am i right, is the main charge here coming fr
to al qaeda that individuals with ties to al qaeda were involved. and then yet, went on the sunday show and left a very different impression. let's not forget that on those sunday shows on "meet the press" as well as "face the nation" she also made the statement that al qaeda was decimated. and so it left a misleading impression to the american people. i was also troubled that they knew by the 21st the acting director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions
that the obama administration decimated al qaeda. that's something that rubs these republican senators the wrong way. i will tell you what she told them, i'm told, inside the classified briefing this morning, what she meant was it was the core of al qaeda, that's what the obama administration has decimated. but these republican senators think she's lef the impression it's al qaeda in general. last thing i will tell you i was told she did say to the republican senators behind closed doors she regrets saying what she said because she knows it was simply not right. >> where does this go from here? obviously investigating intelligence officials as well, i imagine? >> yes. as i said, the acting director of the cia also in this room. and senators, republicans and democrats, are not thrilled with the information that they got publicly or privately. but the -- what goes on from here more meetings. she's back here, we believe, this afternoon, tomorrow she has a meeting with one senator, bob corker of tennessee, probably others. she's going to make the rounds and she's going to keep trying to persuade sen
questions in the media. he says general petraeus * said the cia knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind it but susan rice did not use that information on the talk shows saying the siege resulted from a spontaneous protest. last thursday clapper tells one story and now according to his spokesman its is just the opposite. do you think he is not still telling the truth? >> it's hard to know. it's the old quote. i'm not mad you lied to me. i'm mad i can't believe anything you tell me. this is the head our intelligence an changes his mind within 24 hours. today is the 70th day since four our fellow americans were murdered. we are talking about susan rice's career progression and james clapper's ability to keep a fact straight and desperate housewives having an affair with generals. gregg: and four people are dead. we are talking about a tragedy here. murdered by terrorists. in reference to james clapper, one story last week, now a different story. it's a crime to lie to congress. do you think a serious look at that needs to be undertaken by perhaps an independent prosecutor? >> it depends. i
that went to the daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. the others gave a different impression, if not contradicting that. like it was a protest. the person who delivered the talking points was susan rice. she said something that i think republicans believe she knew wasn't true. she said it, she must from known it wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic for two reasons. why would she know it wasn't true. >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right. but the point is intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of information that are intentional or can both be true, both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, which seemed like what was the case. so, if you were given one set of talking points that were classified i don't see why -- do you go back to the cia and say you are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here and you want to obscure the fact we know who the terrorists were -- >> this is petraeus' argument at the closed
or not that was even relevant. here's how he responded. >> two embassies were bombed by al qaeda, one simultaneously killing many. senator collins is certainly correct that at the time the ambassador to kenya requested additional security at -- or better security at the embassy because the security at that time was at a very busy intersection, not well-defended against car bombs and the like. as a result of the attacks, the state department produced new stand aurds which basically meant that any new embassy had to be moved back from major intersections or roads. and so, you know, collins is certainly right that this request was made. now, did susan rice not respond to that? i don't think we know the answer to that. was it even susan rice's responsibility? usually this is handled by the diplomatic security bureau which is in charge of these issues and so the fact that she was in charge of africa at the time of the state department may not have much bearing on this issue. we just -- and, you know, obviously she's not responsible for the benghazi security as ambassador of the u.n. we don't really know
that dni now they say they were the ones who took the word al-qaeda out of the memo. >> this is the tech time that clapper has offered what amounted to a political defense of the administration. there had been obviously lots of questions raised about this last week. everybody said we don't know how the are language was pulled out. it's also the second time that clapper seems to have contradicted something he said before. if you look back to the stiary his office released, he said we initially assessed this has been a spontaneous demonstration. we revise that had assessment to reflect the fact we understood it was a terrorist attack -- that is not what people testified to. a number of intelligence officials on capitol hill saying under oath, we need immediately this was a terrorist attack. those two things, you put those statements next to each other that is flat contradiction. how do we have those contradictions two months after this. >> greta: from the state department phone call, fox excluded from the c.i.a. briefing and when the explanation when the dni, they don't want us to know --
as the aircraft carrier waits for the body of osama bin laden. it's may 2nd, 2011. the al qaeda leader has just been killed by navy s.e.a.l.s. in emails two admirals used code words to describe bin laden. the commander said fedex delivered the package. both trucks are safely en route. temp males heavily redacted have been released by the defense department. a few days earlier that strike group commander had asked another officer do i need any special religious certificate remonth niall preparations. after bin laden's burial at sea an admiral describes the scene. traditional procedures were followed. his body was washed and placed in a white sheet. the body was placed in a weighted bag. a military officer read prepared religious remarks which were translated in to arabic by a native speaker. after the words were complete the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, where upon the deceased's body slid into the sea. according to the emails there aren't many witnesses. in response to the question any sailors watched the burial the heading of one e-mail says burial no sailors watched and
as the aircraft carrier "carl vinson" waits for the body of osama bin laden. it's may 2nd, 2011. the al qaeda leader's just been killed by navy s.e.a.l.s. in e-mails, two u.s. navy admirals used code words to describe bin laden. the commander of the carrier strike group says, fedex delivered the package, both trucks are safely en route, home base. the e-mails were just released in response to a lawsuit by the group judicial watch. a few days earlier, the question was asked, do i need any spiritual ceremonial preparations? "traditional procedures for islamic burial was followed. the deceased's body was washed and then placed in a white sheet. a military officer read prepared religious remarks which were translated into arabic by a native speaker, after the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased's body slid into the sea. according to the e-mails, there aren't many witnesses. in ponce response to this question, the heading of one e-mail says, burial, no sailors watched. another says, only a small group of the leadership was informed,
five days i get this is al-qaeda. i'm not going to go throughout and make myself look bad -- >> eric: why are the senators pulling back? >> dana: i have a reason. i don't know this for sure. gut instinct. if you read carl cannon of real clear politics, straight down the middle guy, touching on your thing how bizarre the story is and how they slid past it. i doesn't pass the smell test. i think the reason that the republican senators can back off if that is what they're doing is last week, national liberal columnist came out and said it's not just the benghazi thing. forget about that. she does not deserve a promotion based on performance. if you have that, then if you have that on the left, on the right you can let go a little bit. >> kimberly: quick, i want to bring this up. this is interesting. the coptic christian that is jailed for making the film, freedom of expression and not backing down on it. site of the 2009 massacre in fort hood, texas, prime example of the violence committed under the sign of allah. what do you make of the comments? >> eric: this guy is probably of the mo
it in themselves to soften. here is the thing the way i understand it. they pulled al-qaeda out of the talking points and pulled the protest out of the talking points and she still went with it. she still went with it and told the american people everything she was told to say. >> bob: learn how the process works. c.i.a. is one of a number of intelligence agencies that put talk points. they didn't have the agre agreement. she got factual in their view, intelligence community view of what happened. she gave it to the sunday talk show. she made a mistake and said she made a mistak miswhat more u ask for? do you think he is went up and there purposefully lied? >> brian: shouldn't you do your research? >> andrea: yes. she knew there were conflicting accounts. why push anyone from the administration out to say anything at all. she should have done her research. maybe she is not a liar. maybe she is incatch tent. one thing that the senator trying to block you. it was great what mccain did. getting the heat. and republicans were being sexist. and let me give her a fair shake. john bolton was up for a
and al qaeda were taken out for a couple of reasons. one, the intelligence was evolving and they didn't want to tip them off. we need to let this go. the fiscal cliff and jobs are far more important. >> and let's talk about the fiscal cliff and jobs. in your time in california you worked on in the state assembly, a state hit hard by a fiscal y crisis. >> i sure did. >> i want to talk to you about something you said in terms of medicare reform and medicaid. obviously republicans are saying, look, in exchange for any type of taxes going up, we want to see some real entitlement reform. you talk about cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse. is there enough revenue from waste, fraud and abuse and m medicare to get the type of serious deficit reform needed to bring down the $16 trillion debt? >> well, you know, i think anytime you're talking about a deficit, there's two ways to bring it down, and i know you know this well. you're either going to raise revenue or have cuts, and i would continue to argue for a balanced approach which means i do think you can find savings in both programs.
that never before has there been a weapon that allows us to distinguish more effectively between an al qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians. >> that is the defense of the obama administration today. in essence that this program is so targeted it saves civilian lives. what do you say to that in your case? >> well, i think it's very hard to assess that kind of claim without more information. information that the administration refuses to release. it's very easy for administration officials to make claims like this when there's no possibility that they're going to be held to account for the claims, no possibility that some court is going to order them to disclose information, no possibility that they'll be sksd foll -- asked follow-up questions. part of the reason we are in court asking judges to enforce the freedom of information act, asking judges to disclose more information is to allow the public to better assess the kinds of claims that the administration is now making, usually through unnamed officials in leaks to favored media. >> jodi, do you think this is the area where we've seen pe
are we surprised they'd tweak the points. and director of intelligence, whether the line on al qaeda as a threat and all of those things, segue back to this book, all of that's in here, not to scare the american people, but to bring them up to speed on what's happening in crowds like the so-called fast and serious operation to go on and coverup with executive privilege. this is a scary administration. >> can you give me 20 seconds on what qualifies as an assault weapon, which this administration would like to ban? because a lot of people they're confused and so am i, frankly, i don't know wh an assault weapon is. >> they're going to look at a weapon with api pistol grip, an more and a few rounds and a flash suppresser. even though it's like my .22 or the automatic shotgun i'm giving to one of my grandsons at christmas. i'm one of the folks who applied for one of the permits to buy a gun. what we don't want to have is a requirement to register those firearms and that's what has the got people buying so many of ttem. stuart: that's an important thing, they're require to register, is th
-time, the state now is disconnected from reality. [inaudible] jump out at you. this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of in cory and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear -- inquiry into gaza, i think we pretty clear as related to a video that created a mod that turned into a riot was far a field. and at the end of the day we are going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say, i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got bad information on 16 september. they got bad information from president obama the days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, it's better to give no information at all. so my belief is not only is the information bad, and i'm more convinced than ever that it was ba
that's islamic jihad or that's al qaeda or something else. total and complete cessation of all hostile activity initiated from the gaza strip. hamas controls gaza. they are responsible for gaza. >> will you ease the blockade of grauz as a result of this agreement? >> the thing is, wolf, over the last few years we've had a gradual lifting of restrictions, slow and steady, incremental, but a slow and steady process of easing restrictions. now, here you've got to put cause and effect in the right order. we only impose restrictions because of the hostility, because of the rockets, because of the violence, because of the terrorism. if the border is quiet, that enables us to be more forthcoming and arrangements agreed with egyptians say we'll start talking from tomorrow about a process to work on those issues. >> is there an agreement that the u.s. will now help egypt prevent smuggling of weapons into gaza from -- >> well, you saw what the bhous put out, and that for us is a big issue because we don't want to see hamas, and that's one of the issues that we'll be discussing in the coming days
the al qaeda leader was buried at sea. heather: the top republican in the house wants to go after the healthcare in the fiscal negotiations. [ male announcer ] this december, remember -- you can stay in and share something... or you can get out there and actually share something. ♪ the lexus december to remember sales event is on. this is the pursuit of perfection. rick: a fox news alert as we updaten a story we have been covering the past couple hours. the massive pileup in texas. we have confirmation two people have died. probably 80-100 people injured. a lot of them taken to local hospitals. there were crews looking for people who may have still been trapped and perhaps this is how they came to learn that two people died. this is jefferson county, texas. this chain reaction accident happening on the highway there. the result of heavy fog. and we are told there are three different areas workers still on the scene as we learn more. we'll pass it along. heather: thanksgiving is a time to counts our blessings and help thoseless fortunate. but in a scramble for revenues tax change
references to al qaeda being involved. so another question for her would clearly be, who changed that, who decided not to include that, right? >> let's come to the second point. that she says she simply read these talking points and if that's true, really poses a much more fundamental question. why did she read the talking points? and it goes to a basic disagreement about how senior officials function in government. there are plenty of people, and i can same secretaries of state, who simply regurgitate what their bureaucracies produced for them, who relied on talking points. talking points were put in front of them and they read them. that is one way to approach government. that is not the way i approached government and got me in considerable trouble from time to time. if that is the way she approached it i think there is question whether from a point of view of judgment that is something that you want to see perpetuated. martha: talk about the politics of all of this for a moment because there's a reason that susan rice requested these meetings with these three senators. we know she is b
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)